Logging PIC in a Tail Wheel without endorsement.

Me too. Many of them. Neither airplane that I owned had a hobbs meter. Fly a Cessna 140 on a regular basis that does not have one. None of the gliders I flew had 'em. None of the helicopters I flew in the military had one. Airliners don't have them.
Yeah, believe it or not there are airplanes that don't have them (not all aircraft are used by FBOs for flight instruction ;) ). Some of 'em are pretty big and built by this little company called Boeing. :insane:

We've got an air timer on the Twinbo for maintenance purposes - but flight time (14 CFR 1.1) starts when the aircraft moves under its own power, so air time is an underreporting of flight experience.
 
You're right there. I remember the horror stories of 'madmen' FAA Inspectors, and DPEs. Back then, FAA Inspectors gave most of the checkrides.

A Flight Instructor's first 5 students recommended had to be with an FAA Inspector. The new instructor was issued an 'LFI", a Limited Flight Instructor Certificate, which was changed to 'CFI' after successfully completing 5 students. The Checkride could be any maneuver in the AFH, and more of the ride was scenario based, ie., x/c enroute emergencies which led to more realistic short or soft field landings, which demonstrated in-flight decision making, and on and on.

Of course, this led to way too much Power,..and corruption, so Iwas glad when the PTS concept first came out with a more standardized way of testing. It was intended to be a 'sampling' of a larger syllabus of training presented in the AFH, PHAK, and the FAR/AIM.

...and if we instructors and schools had kept teaching the whole book and the scenario based methods of ADM, instead of just teaching the test, the PTS would have been a good thing.

But I would rather go back to teaching the whole thing and hoping the xaminer doesn't make the student lose it.

Checkrides, Final Certification Checkrides, by the way, should be stressful.

Flying can be stressful, and there should be a test of it.

But there should be step-up checkrides along the way, which are not stressful at all at first, but increasing in stress as the level of responsibility, authority and complexity increase to a final level which demonstrates ability to carry pax in extreme stressful conditions.

The "Standardized PTS" has become a rote demonstration of performing rote maneuvers and procedures, canned emergency procedures, and so on.

I'm not happy with what our current system of training has become. All the checkrides were not with crazy men.

They had high expectations. We all were proud to go up against some old crusty cigar smokin' gray haired Inspector that scared the bejesus outta you, and come back and have him give you a big grin and a handshake after a whole flight of complainin and cussin.

We were more concerned with proficiency (aka savin' my bacon), than with cost. We didn't want taxi time to be counted as flight time. Whaddaya, crazy? Of course we weren't paying for taxi time on the airplane either.

So, interpretations have changed according to changing times and conditions. And locations. And will continue to do so, long after you and I have beat this to death.


:clap:
 
Where do they rent these wonderplanes?

And I'm NOT falling for the bananna in the tailpipe thing again!
I've flow one or two through the years that were available through regular FBOs. Generally older aircraft that were owned by someone before going to the FBO. (I also was a minority part owner of one and flew it for 6 years paying based on tach hours into the kitty).

I'm not sure what the "wonderplane" label means. Don't worry, the folks pricing these airplanes are basing the hourly on the fact that there is no Hobbs. If you take two equivalent 172s, one with a Hobbs and one without one, you can expect to pay more per tach hour for the one without the Hobbs than you'll pay for a Hobbs hour - often that already-mentioned 1.2 multiplier.

I'm really curious thought - why the apparent disbelief that a certain piece of equipment didn't exist at one time and isn't in 100% of aircraft? It's a bit weird.
 
Don't worry, the folks pricing these airplanes are basing the hourly on the fact that there is no Hobbs. If you take two equivalent 172s, one with a Hobbs and one without one, you can expect to pay more per tach hour for the one without the Hobbs than you'll pay for a Hobbs hour - often that already-mentioned 1.2 multiplier.

So you're saying I'm not missing out on any bargains?

I'm really curious thought - why the apparent disbelief that a certain piece of equipment didn't exist at one time and isn't in 100% of aircraft? It's a bit weird.

I was being sarcastic. Please say you knew
 
So you're saying I'm not missing out on any bargains?
Sometimes but not really. The people who own and make airplanes available for rental know the difference between Hobbs and tach time also.

Now, combine tach time charges and a dry rental rate and you can really save some bucks!
I was being sarcastic. Please say you knew
After a couple of posts suggesting you never heard of such a thing, I had no reason to think you were kidding.
 
Yeah-errrr, uhm... I mean...


ejection-seat-af-acesii_1_-375x254.jpg


EJECT!
 
Back
Top